In Zimmerman's statement today at the hearing, he said, " I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."

During his non-emergency call with police he said:

Quote:

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

Maybe that is the sort of thing the investigator meant. But if it is, it does not seem to me to be particularly devastating.

Reality is messy. Fiction wraps up everything neatly. And a story that is perfect in every detail is often a story that has been rehearsed.

That doesn't mean we accept whatever Zimmerman says at face value. It means that, maybe, when Zimmerman first spotted Martin he thought he was in his late teens, but revised his age estimate after Martin punched him in the face and began bashing his head on the ground.

"He's got a button on his shirt." I've got lots of buttons on lots of shirts. That just sounds weird -- not that it means anything in this whole deal -- but every time I hear that I picture Dagwood Bumstead with one giant button in the middle of his chest.

A new photograph obtained exclusively by ABC News showing the bloodied back of George Zimmerman's head, which was taken three minutes after he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, gives possible credence to his claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as he fought for his life. </SNIP>

"He's got a button on his shirt." I've got lots of buttons on lots of shirts. That just sounds weird -- not that it means anything in this whole deal -- but every time I hear that I picture Dagwood Bumstead with one giant button in the middle of his chest.

Since hoodies have usually have zippers not buttons, I can only assume he meant one of those buttons with funny slogans or whatever that you pin on your clothes. If so, I wonder what was on Martin's button.

As I posted several pages back, he's no threat to society. He can't run because his face is known coast to coast. Bail makes sense. I'm a little surprised there's no mention of an ankle bracelet. But, the article did say there's several details to work out. Including the possibility of letting him live out of state.

I do think he should wear a tracking bracelet and be restricted to within 25 miles of where ever he's living. That would allow a fairly normal life, shopping, and maybe even working someplace while he's waiting for trial.

I think both Rand Rover and Shodan are attacking a straw man. The question, at least in my mind, wasn't whether there were any injuries at all. The question was the extent of the injuries. The question is, do they or do they not coincide with the claims of repeated bashing against concrete.

Ultimately, the answer probably lies in the EMT report, but the unofficial photos and videos don't seem to support the idea of serious life threatening injury.

And can we stop with the juvenile "Team Trayvon" crap? It adds nothing to the conversation and borders on ad hominem.

That's not really a good question either, being bashed against concrete is ill defined and will have variable results.

I've never had my head bashed against concrete, but I've fallen on a knee in a grassy field before. Playing baseball, football, doing various outdoor activities my entire life, that happens sometimes.

Many times I've fallen on a knee in the grass and just get grass stains and a minor bruise.

A few times, it's cut through my jeans/pants and actually given me a scrape.

One time I remember, it tore my jeans badly, caused a serious bruise, and caused a huge bloody scrape that basically caused my lower leg to be covered profusely in blood.

Just going from what I have experience with (and concrete + head interactions aren't in that experience), but I don't think there's any factual way to say any given wound is proof or disproof of any given action.

What if there is a tiny pebble in the grass or a small stick poking up. Still say its impossible to get a scratch? Anyone speaking in absolutes on these topics is kind of showing their bias imho. To be so certain of things like this is folly at this stage of the process.

I've gotten lacerations from falling on the grass (interestingly I posted about this before reading that post.)

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1) The seriousness of wounds
2) How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you've made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish--basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

Accepting for a moment that Zims statement of being straddled and having his head slammed into the concrete is true

How is he supposed to determine the point when it becomes life threatening? Is there a handbook that says 5 slams = life threatening? What sort of professional background is required to make such a determination?

What's the relevance of the snide remark about the button on Martin's jacket not being about his perfect attendance? How does that further the conversation in a beneficial way? What way does attendance record factor in to what happened that night?

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1) The seriousness of wounds
2) How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you've made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish--basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

The seriousness of the alleged beat-down is what counts and is independent on the seriousness of wounds. It is the trauma to the brain that is in question. At best, the bleeding wounds are consistent with the impact of getting one's head dribbled on the concrete. As I've stated before, it wouldn't take too many wacks to instill a fear of a fatal injury.

What I believe the officer on the stand recounted was that Zimmerman said his head was beaten on the cement sidewalk by Martin and he then scooched to the grass (presumably for softer ground).

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1) The seriousness of wounds
2) How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you've made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish--basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

The only information I'm relying on is, Martin is dead, Zimmerman is alive, and if those wounds represent anything close to a life threatening situation then I should have been dead at least 20 times by this time

Just because I'm not Team Responsible Gun Owner Who Irresponsibly Used His Gun, doesn't mean I'm on Team Trayvon.

In fact, you pigeon-holing me as "Team Trayvon" in the first place proves to me that you are unworthy of serious attention.

The only information I'm relying on is, Martin is dead, Zimmerman is alive, and if those wounds represent anything close to a life threatening situation then I should have been dead at least 20 times by this time

So.... because you dont feel threatened in that situation, nobody should?

Quote:

Just because I'm not Team Responsible Gun Owner Who Irresponsibly Used His Gun, doesn't mean I'm on Team Trayvon.

In fact, you pigeon-holing me as "Team Trayvon" in the first place proves to me that you are unworthy of serious attention.

So there.

So.... the only facts youre relying on are Dead and Alive, but without any other information, you will call it Irresponsibly.

I guess what that means is you come to conclusions without the necessary fact often?

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn't need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

That's pretty much the team I'm on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Could you learn anything that would change your mind?

Since I'm on that team, I'll answer that question: I don't know. I cannot at this moment think of anything plausible (<---key. I can think of lots of outlandish things that don't make much sense) that would significantly change my mind. I think GZ was, in an indirect way, looking for trouble. And people who go looking for trouble have a way of either finding it or actually creating it. Which makes such persons the guilty party for my money. GZ had lots of choices, and lots of moments when he could have made different ones. Every choice he made led to Martin's death. Martin, on the other hand, didn't have as many choices, and he didn't have as many opportunities to make different ones, and he also wasn't operating with the information that GZ was operating with.

As I've described a number of times, I see GZ's actions as falling solidly within the idea of being the aggressor via his behavior, (which doesn't have to be limited to striking the first blow) and thereby preventing him from using SYG as a shield for his behavior, and I also see his behavior as being extremely reckless. So no matter what Martin did, I think GZ is responsible for it right down the line.

And, as I said in the other thread, the voice crying for help on the tape is absolutely huge to me: it makes zero sense as GZ's voice, and all the sense in the world as Martin's- and I think it also conveys a terror and desperation that comes from seeing that gun and knowing that GZ was going to use it. And nothing about what GZ has supposedly said squares with that, as you somewhat agreed.

Someone reading this thread shared a theory with me that I wholedheartedly agree with. They didn't want to share it publicly because they didn't want to catch a ration of shit for playing amateur shrink, but I don't care so I'll say it because it captures my take on GZ exactly:

The actions I've read and the statements I've heard Zimmerman make lead me to suspect that he is a high-functioning person with some sort of mental defect- the things which strike me as significant include:

His repeated failures to be a cop (I bet those psych exam results would be an interesting read).

His need to police his neighborhood armed & looking for trouble, without any supervision or training or accountability.

His sense of entitlement which led him to disregard the instructions of a police dispatcher as if he was pretending he starring in an action movie.

In my speculative opinion, GZ is one of those people that should never be allowed anywhere near a gun, loaded or otherwise.

I have no direct evidence to show that guns excite him much more than an average adult or that this excitement might impair his judgement when he's near them, but I would not be surpised if it is ever released that this is the case. I'm not saying he'd giggle like Beavus & Butthead near a Desert Eagle, but it'd be close.

I'm not surprised that he was found to be in Florida; I'd guess that if Florida had the toughest gun laws in the nation and Alaska had the easiest, we'd have found him in a parka in Fairbanks.

Moth > Flame
Zimmerman > Gun

So it's almost guaranteed that the day would come when Zimmerman's gun fetish would find him standing over a dead body. Now it has. And barring some really spectacular evidence to color this thing differently, I'll be deeply saddened if he's set free with a finding that he was entitled to kill that boy because he was defending himself.

As I've described a number of times, I see GZ's actions as falling solidly within the idea of being the aggressor via his behavior, (which doesn't have to be limited to striking the first blow) and thereby preventing him from using SYG as a shield for his behavior, and I also see his behavior as being extremely reckless. So no matter what Martin did, I think GZ is responsible for it right down the line.

OK.

The problem I have is that you have laid out a case for moral responsibility, but not one for criminal responsibility. I know you see his behavior as reckless, but (speaking only of the behavior for which there is direct evidence) as a matter of law, I do not agree. It's true, for example, that Zimmerman could be legally the aggressor without striking the first blow.... but there would have to be some act beyond possessing a gun, approaching Martin aggressively, and asking him what his business was in the neighborhood.

Of course, the prosecution may indeed have that evidence. But after today's hearing and the examination of one of the two affiants for the PC affidavit, I am more and skeptical that they do. As a matter of law, a reasonable jury cannot convict Zimmerman on the facts I just adduced.

I've become more familiar with Florida law since this case started than I ever thought I'd be, but one thing I have yet to research is whether the right to trial by jury belongs only to the accused, or to the accused and the state. Because the more I see of this case, the more I think a jury might indeed convict based on the reasoning you have offered, putting the judge in the uncomfortable position of a directed verdict or letting the appeals court be the heavy. I am leaning more and more towards the idea that Zimmerman might be best served with a bench trial. Yes, that still puts the onus on the judge, but at least he won't have to disregard the jury's verdict, which would be a bitter pill for the public to swallow.

Tell me: if you were to learn that Zimmerman requested a bench trial, and the state of Florida opposed his motion, what, if anything, would you think about their respective positions?

Listening to the prosecutor's summary remarks at the bail hearing made me think that the roles were already reversed. By that I mean that in my experience, it was usually the prosecution with the specific arguments to the law, and the defense -- because they had few other options -- arguing for a "let's look at the whole picture" approach. Today, I saw the defense attorney ask some very targeted, very specific questions about evidence and get curt 'no' after curt 'no' in response, and I saw a prosecutor say, in effect, don't focus on the details, judge, the important thing to remember here is a boy is dead.

Yes, a boy is dead. But the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the self-defense story beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they need actual evidence. We may well see that evidence down the line, but today... it wasn't there.

The state asked the judge to either remand Zimmerman with no bail, because of the seriousness of the case, or set bail at $1,000,000 cash.

The problem I have is that you have laid out a case for moral responsibility, but not one for criminal responsibility. I know you see his behavior as reckless, but (speaking only of the behavior for which there is direct evidence) as a matter of law, I do not agree. It's true, for example, that Zimmerman could be legally the aggressor without striking the first blow.... but there would have to be some act beyond possessing a gun, approaching Martin aggressively, and asking him what his business was in the neighborhood.

Okay, I accept that. but I ahve a couple of questions:

1) would any attempt to argue it as I have been shut down by the court as legally unacceptable for a jury to decide?

2) no one has ever answered me about my martin-as-a-woman scenario: if GZ had behaved identically towards a lone female, and she had responded defensively, how do you think George Zimmerman's choices would be viewed in a court, by a judge, a prosecutor, a jury? Would it be so difficult to argue that GZ's behavior could and would easily be perceived as threatening by a woman, prompting her to act, and if that's plausible, why is Martin held to a different standard? (That standard being that he did not have a right, in the face of GZ's behavior, to act defensively when he perceived a threat. Because again, were I the type and I were in Martin's shoes, I could easily see myself acting before this crazy stalker asshole got a chance to act. Self-defense 101.)

Sincere request for edification.

Quote:

I've become more familiar with Florida law since this case started than I ever thought I'd be, but one thing I have yet to research is whether the right to trial by jury belongs only to the accused, or to the accused and the state. Because the more I see of this case, the more I think a jury might indeed convict based on the reasoning you have offered, putting the judge in the uncomfortable position of a directed verdict or letting the appeals court be the heavy. I am leaning more and more towards the idea that Zimmerman might be best served with a bench trial. Yes, that still puts the onus on the judge, but at least he won't have to disregard the jury's verdict, which would be a bitter pill for the public to swallow.

Tell me: if you were to learn that Zimmerman requested a bench trial, and the state of Florida opposed his motion, what, if anything, would you think about their respective positions?

If I understand you correctly, I'd think that the prosecution was going to try and reach a jury to get them to convict, assuming that a (presumably...may I snort loudly here?) dispassionate judge would abide strictly by the letter and not see a legal way to find as a jury would.

Quote:

Yes, a boy is dead. But the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the self-defense story beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they need actual evidence. We may well see that evidence down the line, but today... it wasn't there.

From what I gather in this thread, it would seem so. But I still have a HUGE problem with the way it's found to be self-defense when GZ created the situation. I am also very curious about what evidence they are looking at that contradicts GZ - could it be many of the same details that a number of us have pointed to as making his story not-believable?

2) no one has ever answered me about my martin-as-a-woman scenario: if GZ had behaved identically towards a lone female, and she had responded defensively, how do you think George Zimmerman's choices would be viewed in a court, by a judge, a prosecutor, a jury? Would it be so difficult to argue that GZ's behavior could and would easily be perceived as threatening by a woman, prompting her to act, and if that's plausible, why is Martin held to a different standard? (That standard being that he did not have a right, in the face of GZ's behavior, to act defensively when he perceived a threat. Because again, were I the type and I were in Martin's shoes, I could easily see myself acting before this crazy stalker asshole got a chance to act. Self-defense 101.)

Your scenario would have failed on step 1 because any woman would have called 911 if she thought Zimmerman was stalking her. In fact, the reaction of anyone but an adolescent male would be to call 911. Zimmerman wouldn't have been following her in the first place unless you have some 911 calls to report suspicious women in his neighborhood made by Zimmerman. A woman wouldn't have stopped and turned around and tried to confront Zimmerman, while an adolescent male who was 6 inches taller than Zimmerman would be quite likely to. Also Self-Defense 101 would have been to call 911 and keep going instead of letting Zimmerman catch up with her. Martin died 70 yards from his Green's townhome. If he had run for another 15 seconds and would have been safe in her house.

If you are going to assume it was a woman, why don't you assume it was a 10 year old girl while you are spinning your fantasies?

I wrote this 4 pages ago for this thread. I wasn't going to post it, given this has been determined to be a hot-button election issue and that in an election year with 2 identified candidates, all the swift-boat boiler-rooms are fully up and running.

I fully expect a quick dis and some laughing seconds by user names that I've never seen before and who will quickly stop posting after the election.

"Say Thank You to PAC Money from A-holes who Don't Pay Taxes, kids...."

****

I have no direct evidence; this is just a speculation thread anyway. My speculation is limited to just my impressions about the man, not the crime. Again, its just my impression. So here goes...

The actions I've read and the statements I've heard Zimmerman make lead me to suspect that he is a high-functioning person with some sort of mental defect that I'm not trained to diagnose.

His repeated failures to be a cop (I bet those psych exam results would be an interesting read if they could be examined).
His need to police his neighborhood armed & looking for trouble, w/o any supervision or training or accountability.
His entitlement to disregard the instructions of a police dispatcher as if he was pretending he was starring in an action movie.
His low and distant sounding voice while being asked questions, like he was in a fantasy/trance and trying to talk himself into playing the role.

In my opinion, which is just speculation, he is one of those people that never should EVER be allowed near a gun, loaded or otherwise. I have no direct evidence to show that guns excite him much more than an average adult
or that this excitement might impair his judgment when he's near them, but I would not be surprised if it is ever released that this is the case. I'm not saying he'd giggle like Beavus & Butthead or make "Gooch! Gooch! Gooch!"
noises like sheriff Roscoe near a Desert Eagle, but I bet it'd be close.

I'm not surprised that he was found to be in Florida; I'd guess that if Florida had the toughest gun laws in the nation and Alaska had the easiest, we'd have found him in a parka in Fairbanks.

Your scenario would have failed on step 1 because any woman would have called 911 if she thought Zimmerman was stalking her.

Not true. I am a woman, and the scenario looks like this:

I'm walking alone, I see some guy wathing me from his truck. Creeps me out, but he's entitled to look at me, I'm not going to clog up 911 because of my paranoia. I keep moving.

Then it seems that maybe he's actually following me, creeps me out a lot but still not clear. I quicken my pace, I actually break into a little run. I'm almost back to my apartment, after all...

I think I lost him. I don't see him anywhere and I'm talking to my girlfriend.

I turn and bam, there he is, right in front of me. This is the first time he's out of his vehicle and he's right there.

911 is out as a first move because there's no time. My fear is that he's trying to abduct or rape me, so I'm going to DO something. Mace, pepperspray, crotch kick... THEN I'll call 911.

Quote:

In fact, the reaction of anyone but an adolescent male would be to call 911.

Incorrect, as just demonstrated.

Quote:

Zimmerman wouldn't have been following her in the first place unless you have some 911 calls to report suspicious women in his neighborhood made by Zimmerman.

I'm sure you aren't trying to say that Martin was under some special burden of understanding why Zimmerman might be stalking him and would therefore be obliged to avoid overreacting?

Martin had no idea what was in Zimmerman's mind. He just felt threatened, period. Same with Example Woman. She has no clue about anything except the fact that she feels very vulnerable and this man is behaving in a manner she finds extremely alarming.

Quote:

A woman wouldn't have stopped and turned around and tried to confront Zimmerman, while an adolescent male who was 6 inches taller than Zimmerman would be quite likely to.

More incorrect assumptions. I'm 5'8" and have spent my life weighing between 160 and 320, and I would just roll into a ball and cry and the slightest suggestion of a threat. My older sister is 5'2" and 130 pounds soaking wet and she'd kick your ass soon as look at you before she'd let you lay a finger on her. If she was in that situation, she would absolutely have confronted Zimmerman, and might easily have gone straight to the pepper spray without asking any questions. (When she was 19 years old a man broke into her apartment and reached under the covers to feel her up. She pretended to be asleep until his hand started to go under her shirt, at which point she grabbed his arm with both hands and started screaming at the top of her lungs for my other sister, with whom she lived, to call the cops while she kept holding him trying to keep him in place. He got loose and fled. But that's just the kinda gal she is...)

Quote:

Also Self-Defense 101 would have been to call 911 and keep going instead of letting Zimmerman catch up with her.

I disagree. I've heard enough about how overburdened 911 is to not call them unless I have a reason I'm pretty sure about. As I laid out, I would easil consider it overreaction until it was too late.

The point of all this being very simply to determine at what point does Zimmerman's behavior become a legitimate issue? If I were Trayvon Martin I would have felt very threatened. I know because I feel, as a woman and a wuss, very vulnerable and someone following me around when I am walking home would freak me out. If that person suddenly popped up on foot in front of me, I can see being scared to death and reacting defensively. So I can see Martin doing so.

If I did that as a woman, how would the law see my actions?

If the law would say my actions could be considered reasonable given Zimmerman's behavior and my complete ignorance of his purpose, wouldn't the same apply to Martin's actions if his defensive act was to punch GZ vs. pepperspraying him? And if one is going to argue that they are actually different, then you have to explain why/how. Given that Mystery Female and Martin are both completely ignorant of GZ's intentions and thoughts, they both feel threatened by the mysterious and disturbing behavior of Zimmerman, why would Martin have a special burden that makes him more responsible for going physical defensively than she would be? And if the law would in fact find that she AND Martin were reasonably justified to be frightened of Zimmerman, then that has to be taken into consideration when assessing who "started" it and who was acting from self-defense. If she's acting from self-defense, then so is Martin, and Zimmerman has to be held to account for being a fucking asshole who created the situation that ultimately "forced" him to pull his gun, i.e. being Stalky McStalkerson.

Was anybody else amused when Gilbreath said he hadn't seen Zimmerman's medical records and O'Mara offered to give him a copy? Is it just me or is that a pretty serious oversight to not to try to get those records? I assume they would at least need a court order to get those records, but you would assume they would at least try.

If O'Mara can do this to the prosecution now, what is it going to be like after he goes through discovery and knows everything the prosecution knows?

Also did you notice the part where the FBI couldn't identify the voice on the 911 recording?

Quote:

O'MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon's mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin's voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

GILBREATH: Did I?

O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

[QUOTE=Stoid;14987743] Stoid you just spun out a theoretical scenario and when I pointed out the correct reaction, you turn around and pull your gender card and say that isn't how you would react. First I call BS and say that isn't the way a typical woman reacts and frankly I don't think you would have actually reacted to that situation like you state. I point out that an extra X chromosome doesn't make you an expert on how women would react. You have perverted ideas about how self-defense works. You do call 911 and you do your best to avoid a confrontation. I've already stated in the previous thread that Zimmerman was an idiot to get out of his truck.

If you want to spin imaginary scenarios, then you should go to the 2nd amendment thread instead of trying to give Martin a sex-change operation.

I wrote this 4 pages ago for this thread. I wasn't going to post it, given this has been determined to be a hot-button election issue and that in an election year with 2 identified candidates, all the swift-boat boiler-rooms are fully up and running.

I fully expect a quick dis and some laughing seconds by user names that I've never seen before and who will quickly stop posting after the election.

"Say Thank You to PAC Money from A-holes who Don't Pay Taxes, kids...."

Ok, I spent at least 10 minutes trying to decipher this post and I still have no clue what it's about. Why did you chop up Stoid's post instead of just quoting it? And furthermore, WTF?